John F. Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War VVAW, who did John Kerry work for?

In reading the FBI files concerning John F. Kerry and the VVAW I find several instances where the VVAW is receiving money, directions, and non-monetary support from Communist Organizations in the USA, Europe, Soviet Union, France and Southeast Asia, as well as other countries. There are also many instances of support from front groups of Communist Organizations in the USA towards the VVAW and its political efforts. There is an instance where members of the VVAW meet with a Soviet KGB agent in the United States. Not all of what the VVAW and John Kerry were doing involved stopping the war, they had an anti capitalism agenda also. But, back to the issue of the monies and support the VVAW was receiving.

I believe this information indicates that John F. Kerry and the VVAW were working for International Communists whose goal is to overthrow the United States of America and turn it into a Socialist/Communist state. The goal was not just to defeat the United States in Vietnam, the goal was also to weaken the FBI, CIA, military, courts, and other US Government institutions that defend and protect us in America from treats by our enemies.

John F. Kerry, with his connections to International Communists during his membership, leadership role in VVAW and his voting record as a Senator raises some very interesting questions as to who does John Kerry work for, both then and now. Because as a leader of VVAW he was working for the International Communists that were paying the bills and giving directions to the VVAW to defeat the United States of America.

And recently it has been reported that John Kerrys Senate campaign received money from the Chinese Communists in the amount of $20,000.00.

The Los Angeles Times recently reported that selected leaders of Kerrys Vietnam Veterans Against the War met with representatives of Hanoi who told these leaders which senators they wanted assassinated, and that Kerry participated in a closed-door discussion on November of 1971 on whether to do this. Kerry denies this, saying he resigned the organization in July of 1971. But there is a problem. Reporter Thomas H. Lipscomb in an article in The New York Sun wrote:

A Vietnam veteran who said he remembers John Kerry participating in a November 1971 Kansas City meeting at which an assassination plot was discussed says an official with the Kerry presidential campaign called him this month and pressured him to change his story. The veteran, John Musgrave, says he was called twice by the head of Veterans for Kerry, John Hurley, who told him,Why dont you refresh your memory and call that reporter back ? Musgrave said, I told Hurley it was my first meeting as an state officer of VVAW and I remember Kerry being there. I remember what I remember.

By then, the recollections of six witnesses, along with minutes and FBI records, placed Kerry at the Kansas City meeting, but the story has since then been sanitized until it simply disappeared. However, John Musgrave is a friend of Mr. Magruder and lives in the same area in Kansas. He was one of 62 Vietnam vets Mr. Magruder interviewed in Houston for this film. He appears in a photo with Mr. Magruder and General William Westmoreland at the end of the film. At that time Musgrave was running for President of Vietnam Veterans of America. Said Mr. Magruder, Musgrave once autographed a book of his for me, On Snipers, Laughter, and Death:Vietnam Poems, as follows: To Len - a true friend of the Vietnam veteran and a friend of mine - your buddy- John. Said Mr. Magruder, I have great admiration for John Musgrave. He is a man of great integrity and courage. He was very badly wounded in Vietnam and earned three Purple Hearts. He is very highly regarded in this community . He got out of VVAW when he saw how it was being used by the Left. If he says Kerry was at that meeting in Kansas City, then Kerry was at that meeting, period. I think Kerry has a problem here that has been buried by a media that is campaigning for Kerry.

2
posted on 09/10/2004 7:38:26 AM PDT
by stockpirate
(Dick Morris; Before he spoke, supporting Bush was a duty one owed to the fallen. Now, it is an honor)

This is an excellent post. I think this is the most important story for the coming weeks.

Ask yourself this: How and why did a young naval officer with only 600 people in his organization, VVAW, manage to obtain an audience with the North Vietnamese? Was it through surrogates like Ramsey Clark and others?

Fact is, Kerry is in Paris meeting with the North Vietnamese and negotiating for the release of POWs.

This story is talked about in the last chapters of UNFIT FOR COMMAND but the press has not pursued it and the Swiftees have not brought it out yet.

I think this information should be forwarded to Drudge, Rush and others.

Kerry has not had a news conference in over one month, except MTV and comedy central.

John Kerry directly contributed to the lies of the anti war movement AND caused deaths and injuries to US Military serving in Vietnam AND directly caused deaths from injuries at home AND countless suicides because of his false testimony.

John Kerry is not fit to be elected dog catcher let alone President of the United States.ANYONE who votes for Kerry AFTER knowing this data is guilty of covering up John Kerry's war crimes!

John Kerry, director of the Vietnam Veterans against the War, testified before special session the Senate Foreign Relations Committee April 22, 1971

KERRY GAVE TESTIMONY BASED UPON FALSE INFORMATION THAT KERRY KNEW AHEAD OF TIME TO BE FALSE!

By then, the recollections of six witnesses, along with minutes and FBI records, placed Kerry at the Kansas City meeting, but the story has since then been sanitized until it simply disappeared.

This is actually a huge story, they no one talks about. Kerry lied to his biographer to cover up the fact he was at a meeting that plotted the killing of high-level US politicians. Kerry reportedly did resign at the meeting, but this is huge that Kerry even belong to such a group, let alone being a national leader for this extremist organization.

Kerry was a signer of thePeoples Peace Treaty. A peoples declaration to end the war, drawnup in communist East Germany. It included nine points, all of which were taken from VietCong peace proposals at the Paris peace talks as conditionsfor ending the war

The Vietnam Vets were taken to Soviet Camp INTA

More than 1,000 American enlisted personnel and officers. Where they were imprisoned and killed, and their records burned in the boiler room in the eastern suburb on Shakhtnaya Street.

And there are suppose to be more alive. Kerry can't let them come home cause then EVERYONE will know what he did.

Memorandum for: Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Prisoners of War and Missing in Action

From: John F. McCreary

Subject: Legal Misconduct and Possible Malpractice in the Select Committee

1. As a member of the Virginia State Bar, I am obliged by Disciplinary Rule DR-1-103(a) to report knowledge of misconduct by an attorney "to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violations." Under Rule IV, Paragraph 13, of the Rules for the integration of the Virginia State Bar, this obligation follows me as a member of the Bar, regardless of the location of my employment, for as long as I remain a member of the Virginia State Bar. Therefore, I am obliged, as a matter of law and under pain of discipline by the Virginia State Bar, to report to you my knowledge of misconduct and possible prima facie malpractice by attorneys on the Select Committee in ordering the destruction of Staff documents containing Staff intelligence findings on 9 April 1992 and in statements in meetings on 15 and 16 April to justify the destruction.

2. The attached Memoranda For the Record, one by myself and another by Mr. Jon D. Holstine, describe the relevant facts, which I summarize herein:

a. On 9 April 1992, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, in response to a protest by other members of the Select Committee, told the Select Committee members that "all copies" would be destroyed. This statement was made in the presence of the undersigned and of the Staff Chief Counsel who offered no protest.

b. Later on 9 April 1992, the Staff Director, Frances Zwenig, an attorney, repeated and insured the execution of Senator Kerry's order for the destruction of the Staff intelligence briefing text. I personally delivered to Mr. Barry Valentine, the Security Manager for SRB-78, the original printed version of the intelligence briefing text. I also verified that the original was destroyed by shredding in the Office of Senate Security on 10 April 1992, along with 14 copies.

c. On 15 April 1992, the Staff Chief Counsel, J. William Codinha of Massachusetts, when advised by members if the Staff about their concerns over the possible criminal consequences of destroying documents, minimized the significance of the act of destruction; ridiculed the Staff members for expressing their concerns; and replied, in response to questions about the potential consequences, "Who's the injured party," and "How are they going to find out because its classified." Mr. Codinha repeatedly defended the destruction of the documents and gave no assurances or indications that any copies of the intelligence briefing text existed.

d. On 16 April, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee, Senator John Kerry, stated that he gave the order to destroy "extraneous copies of the documents" and that no one objected. Moreover, he stated that the issue was "moot" because the original remained in the Office of Senate Security "all along."

e. I subsequently learned that the Staff Director had deposited a copy of the intelligence briefing text in the Office of Senate Security at 1307 on 16 April.

3. The foregoing facts establish potentially a prima facie violation of criminal law and a pattern of violations of legal ethics by attorneys in acts of commission and omission.

a. It is hornbook law that an attorney may not direct the commission of a crime. In this incident two attorneys, one by his own admission, ordered the destruction of documents, which could be violation of criminal law.

b. Neither the Staff Chief Counsel nor any member of the Select Committee made a protest or uttered words of caution against the destruction of documents, by admission of the Chairman, Senator Kerry. The Chief Counsel has an affirmative duty to advise the Staff about the legality of its actions, and, in fact, had earlier issued the general prohibition to the Staff against document destruction.

c. The Chief Counsel's statements during the 15 April meeting to discuss the document destruction showed no regard for the legality of the action and displayed to the Staff only a concern about getting caught. By his words and actions, he presented to the Staff investigators an interpretation of the confidentiality and security rules that the rules of the Select Committee may be used to cover-up potentially unethical or illegal activity.

d. The Staff Director's action in placing an unaccounted for copy of the intelligence briefing text in the Office of Senate Security on 16 April constitutes an act to cover-up the destruction. Throughout the 16 April meeting, all three attorneys persisted in stating that the document had been on file since 9 April. This is simply not true.

4. I believe that the foregoing facts establish a pattern of grave legal misconduct - possibly including orders to commit a crime, followed by acts to justify and then to cover-up that crime. Even absent criminal liability, the behavioral pattern of the attorneys involved plays fast and loose with the Canons of Legal Ethics and establishes that one or more of the attorneys on the Select Committee are unfit to practice law. I am obliged to recommend that this report be filed with the appropriate disciplinary authorities of the State Bars in which these attorneys are members.

John F. McCreary, Esquire

11
posted on 09/10/2004 8:03:58 AM PDT
by Calpernia
("People never like what they don't understand")

I just don't understand why this story has no legs. Obviously, there is relunctancy by the MSM to discuss this, but somehow it needs to be pushed. Kerry actions were criminal. If he knows someone is plotting to kill US Senators, he is guilty. And in fact someone did try to blow up Agnew. This is similar to Nichols connection to McVeigh, and he could get the death penalty.

Consult http://www.cpusa.com web site for its determined efforts to defeat George W. Bush. And, why has the ACLU so many ads on TV in support of Kerry?

IMHO, Kerry's current so-called "flip-flopping" is not consistent with the determined life-long total consistency of his record, from the Commencement Address, to his 1971 Testimony, to the Harvard Crimson interview statements when he was first running for public office (outlining his firm commitment to the idea that American troops should be directed by the United Nations and should only be dispersed throughout the world under the direction of the United Nations).

This consistency of ideas can be traced through his entire 20 years in the U. S. Senate, documented by the things he has voted for and those he has voted against.

It's a little disingenuous now to portray an image of a person who flip-flops (and the Republicans and media have aided him), when his entire life seems to have been dedicated to a cause that has resulted in complete philosophical consistency. Could the so-called "flip-flopping" be a deliberate effort to make this candidate appear to be something he is not?

Perhaps it's not just documents that are the hoax here. Perhaps it's that the Democratic Party has been hijacked, the American people have been misled, and the predictions of George Washington and others of our wise Founders are being fulfilled. . . . . . . .that the greatest danger to the American experiment would come from within.

One can sometimes find out more about a candidate by examining carefully the nature and goals of his/her most ardent supporters than by merely listening to the candidate's words.

"I believe this information indicates that John F. Kerry and the VVAW were working for International Communists whose goal is to overthrow the United States of America and turn it into a Socialist/Communist state. The goal was not just to defeat the United States in Vietnam, the goal was also to weaken the FBI, CIA, military, courts, and other US Government institutions that defend and protect us in America from treats by our enemies."

Things only dreamed of in the 70's fulfilled by the Clintons, remember the wallbuilder "GORELICK"????

Wonder if the modern day A.N.S.W.E.R. gang are the step-children of the VVAW???

Many of the people who signed the various documents in Mutiny Does Not Happen Lightly: The Literature of the American Resistance to the Vietnam War appeared again as signers of the Not In Our Name ad that appeared in papers all over the country, denouncing Bush and the wars on terrorism and Iraq.

Bump ba Bump Bump

22
posted on 09/10/2004 10:02:13 AM PDT
by Calpernia
("People never like what they don't understand")

Thanks for the ping. Kerry and the antiwar movement in general were definitely in contact with the Communist Party as well as Communist-infiltrated Trotskyite groups like the Socialist Workers Party both here and abroad through numerous channels. One of the key ones was the World Peace Council (WPC), which served to link the Soviets and North Vietnamese to the international antiwar movement through international meetings like those VVAW representatives attended in Oslo and Paris. Another important link was the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) which had connections to the Winter Soldier Investigation through the Citizens Commission of Inquiry (CCI). Then of course there was VVAW's link to Jane Fonda--the list goes on and on. And prior to his association with the VVAW, Kerry had been linked to the Vietnam Moratorium Committee (VMC), which coordinated with Moscow and Hanoi through the New Mobe; and Robert Drinan, who had travelled to North Vietnam in 1969 before Kerry started working for him and had numerous other Communist connections.

Regarding the Kansas City meeting, I was reviewing Nicosia's account of that today, and what's really striking there is that his account of the Kansas City meeting is otherwise accurate, but for some reason he mistakenly describes Kerry's resignation from the executive committee as occurring at an earlier meeting in St. Louis in July 1971. Why did Nicosia happen to get that particular detail wrong? Curiously, the source he cites for this information is not Kerry himself, but interviews with Joe Urgo, Al Hubbard, and Mike Oliver, with Oliver appearing to be the main source. Citing Oliver, he attributes Kerry's resignation to a conflict between Kerry and Hubbard at that time stemming from a few months earlier at Dewey Canyon when Hubbard had embarrassed Kerry by being exposed as a fraud just when Kerry was about to testify to the Senate. After this, Nicosia cites Oliver recounting, Kerry became concerned that Hubbard's fraudulent tactics and revolutionary rhetoric might undermine the VVAW's credibility and hurt his (Kerry's) own political chances, so Kerry tried to distance himself from Hubbard's flamboyance by emphasizing that the VVAW should try to change the system from within. Nicosia quotes Kerry recalling in interviews conducted in 1988 and 1989, "people were sort of doing that [working within the system], but not recognizing the value of it, in some respects, and talking this crazy kind of stuff, and I just had no room for that." My theory is that Kerry's attempt to distance himself from Hubbard is one factor underlying his and Oliver's distorted recollections of the Kansas City meeting. It also sounds to me like in the process of trying to distance himself from Hubbard, Kerry exaggerated the degree of his fallout with Hubbard in his later accounts. Nicosia notes that despite their conflict over Hubbard's fraud, Kerry liked Hubbard personally, argued against those who wanted to expel him from the VVAW, and defended him in public, even though he yelled at Hubbard privately at VVAW inner-circle meetings. It's clear to me from the FBI documents that regional factions of the VVAW opposed to the national office (where Hubbard and Kerry were) viewed Kerry and Hubbard as allies into 1972. Kerry seemed to want to continue his relatioship with Hubbard, just not to be associated with Hubbard's negative public image.

"Ask yourself this: How and why did a young naval officer with only 600 people in his organization, VVAW, manage to obtain an audience with the North Vietnamese? Was it through surrogates like Ramsey Clark and others? Fact is, Kerry is in Paris meeting with the North Vietnamese and negotiating for the release of POWs."

Here I'd suggest Kerry was following in the footsteps of other antiwar leaders who had been "negotiating" on POWs prior to the VVAW going over there--notably Joseph Elder of the Armed Friends Services Committee; David Dellinger; Cora Weiss; Noam Chomsky; and also, through such channels, Ted Kennedy had been given what the North Vietnamese claimed was a complete list of POWs in December 1970, and he received updated lists in summer 1972. I'd deduce it was through contact with these circles--via his contacts with the VMC, Drinan, and VVAW/CCI--that Kerry gained audience with the North Vietnamese and got involved in the POW "negotiations".

I think nobody went to Russia. I heard back in 1989 some Americans listed as missing in action in VN might have been lifted by UFOs and a few landed in Thailand after the war. Bush won't release the files on this for over four years now. Why not?

42
posted on 10/29/2004 10:54:58 AM PDT
by Benjy Franklin
(I'd rather be in Philadelphia!)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.